Right which is what I said earlier. VST 3 probably won't end up in cake until X3 earliest as it will requires a new complex engine and a lot of testing (testing we will all probably end up doing after release). Demanding that VST3 should be implemented right now in Sonar just because cake makes VST 3 plugins right now is quite frankly living in cloud cookoo and rather silly.

scook


Exactly what is Cakewalk's "policy" regarding VST3? Noel says they plan to implement VST3 in SONAR. They are currently providing a couple of VST3 plugins. Would it be nice if SONAR supported VST3 now, sure. It would also be nice to have a better staff view, additional routing options, (insert your favorite enhancement here).... It is still unclear what the controversy is with respect to releasing plugins in VST3 format. How about some outrage and confusion that Cakewalk has released software for Macs and yet no SONAR for Macs.

outrage?
i dont think so,I hope sonar does away with the staff view,its becoming more and more of a complaint issue amoung users
and it seems cakewalk is going in another direction with things like the matrix.
 
lets be totaly honest,any serious orchestra writing artist/company's now a day are using Sibelius.
if you want to do prof. things you need prof. software.Sibelius is that.
 
it would be like me saying im disapointed about the lack of changes/upgrades made to session drummer 3.
i use addictive drums because its prof.software ment exclusively for drumming. (even though i mostly session drummer 3)
 
i agree with a few things you have to say though.id like to see enhancements myself.
color customization is at the top of that list.

CakeAlexS


The code would have been completely be rewritten from Dos and the Windows 9x days. Totally different beast. I'm sure the code would have been rewritten as well when going 64 bit.

im sure your right alex,but by how much?
im not going to pretend and take a guess by saying 50%,60%.
the foudation of the program has always been somewhat the same im sure we can both agree on that.
inserts and buss's are still the same way they were in pro audio when i was doing it in the late 90's with this software. 

I am behind the curve on this. I am seeking more information on this so I just have a few questions. please note that I am not trying to debate anyone about this. I am just uniformed and I am looking for answers.

cclarry
There are 2 MAIN reasons WHY Cake hasn't implemented VST 3. 

ONE

The cost of re-writing the entire program for VST 3 Support,
which, BTW, should have been done several years ago...

Would it really be necessary to rewrite the entire program for VST support? I remember when VST first came to cakewalk. It was in the form of a wrapper. This is what wikipedia says,


VST plugins can be hosted in incompatible environments using a translation layer, or shim. For example, FL Studiofundamentally supports only its own internal plugin architecture, but a native "wrapper" plugin exists that can, in turn, load VST plugins, among others. As another example, FXpansion offers a VST to RTAS (Real Time AudioSuite) wrapper (allowing VST plugins to be hosted in the popular Pro Tools digital audio workstation), and a VST to Audio Unitswrapper (allowing VST plugins to be hosted in Apple Logic ProDigital Audio Workstation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...tudio_Technology 


What about cakewalk's VST-DX adaptor 


The Cakewalk VST-DX Adapter adds VSTi and VSTfx support for various DirectX compatible applications. The adaptor also supports MIDI automation of the VST plug-in. The DX adaptor can automate all the parameters of the VST plug-in. The software includes a drop-down menu selection, with sub-folder organisation. The VST preset sound library is imported into the DX wrapper in .FXB format. 


http://www.ehow.co.uk/lis...dx-wrappers.html 


So my question is this. Did cakewalk abandon the wrapper concept altogether and just write the code for its DAW to use VST 2.4? If this is the case in what version did they make that switch? How would adding VST 3.0 demand an entire rewrite of the code? Would they be able to add a VST3.0 wrapper?

Bub
New code, more stability, more reliability, more features, more creative possibilities, it's FREE to developers.

Wikipedia said this "VST is supported by a large number of audio applications. The technology can be licensed from its creator, Steinberg."


I know that VST is free for developers. These are my questions. Do DAWs pay a license fee for the ability to host VST plugins? and if so is that reflected or passed on in the cost of the DAW? If know one pays any licence fee how does Steinberg make money from VST? 

I could probably dig and find some of the answers but if anyone here knows it would sure save me a lot of time. I have another observation. I noticed that Studio one supports VST2 and VST3. They also support AU. Does anyone know if the AU support is only for a mac version of the program or is there a wrapper that allows AU to work in Windows applications. 

I do think in time we will have the benefit of VST3. I don't know exactly what the next move will be for Sonar.

I think the next re-write of Sonar is going to spell the end of several popular legacy included products, thus reducing the perceived value when they list all the instruments and effects. Right now a good chunk of the effects and instruments are Dxi's and 32-bit. I suspect keeping these legacy things around ads a layer of complexity when it comes to moving forward. They already gave up on Beatscape and The Pentagon bug is ignored. I only say this because my guess is there will be some weeping when that update that brings VST3 also signals the death of the old. I have no problem with that since change is inevitable.

to my knowledge there is no AU for windows wrapper. I suspect if one existed it would be so buggy and clunky to not be worthwhile.

I only say this because my guess is there will be some weeping when that update that brings VST3 also signals the death of the old

 
If that were the case, then those who already know (and love) these plugins would already have them, so excluding them wouldn't be any different than the numerous additions that have dropped off along the way - Timeworks, VSampler, etc.    Assuming, of course, that these older plugins would still physically work.    I sure hope so...
 

Where do we come up with such nonsense? CW has included every plugin they ever wrote going back to Pro Audio. Why would they drop them simply to up the VST support to 3? Where is any connection to that? In a way they throw them in for backward compatibility. This is one area where CW excels. It has always been a program that has kept is file and plugin compatibility intact. 


Also for those of us that want a better Staff View I find it a little perplexing that a fellow member would advocate for its removal. As has been said timeless times all we want is the same functionality in it that Logic and Cubase offer.  

dubdisciple

I think the next re-write of Sonar is going to spell the end of several popular legacy included products, thus reducing the perceived value when they list all the instruments and effects.

Yeah, a lot of people have complained that they don't include Lexicon Reverb any more.

rabeach

scook


It would be interesting to know which one of the CW staff said VST3 was unnecessary, here are a couple of Noel's replies in the last megathread http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2653661 and http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=2654926

But that should not stop this thread from challenging that last for number of posts/reads. After all, post and read numbers matter, right :)

i took Noel comments to mean VST3 brought nothing new to the table. 

This is what i read also, yet i also viewed it as a decidedly technocentric viewpoint..
 
To me, Cakewalk is too largely dominated in direction & priorites by technologists rather than business folks... Such folks would look at customer issues and say.."color customisation?.. yup i can see why that would be nice", Vs engineers who would say "color customisation?..it brings nothing new to the table"..which of course technically, it doesnt.
 
Those folks who have $$$ VST3 plugs & equipment that they cannot effectively use in Sonar x2... really, really dont want to hear whether VST3 brings anything to the table or not.. They simply want the problem fixed at the central source.. the DAW.
 
I have no doubt that Sonar will eventually have VST3 support, it is simply a question of time, and whether some customers are lost along the way...